“I totally disagree with you – and so do a fair majority of reputable sex therapists. Two people will never have the same desire or timing, even if their sex drives are reasonably matched. But when you said ‘I do’ you said ‘I do’ to sex as well. Sex is part of the bargain if you expect your partner to remain married to you and faithful to you.

Six months is a long time without sex without a good reason not to do it. Your husband has a right to expect regular sex and ‘duty shags’, I’m afraid, are all part of the ‘working at the relationship’ that experts rattle on about.”

Well here’s a short history lesson for Ms Cox, courtesy of Joanna Bourke:

“In Britain, America and Australia until the last decade of the twentieth century, a married woman was legally assumed to have consented to each and every act of vaginal intercourse with her husband. As in ‘Gone with the Wind‘, a husband who forced his wife to have sex was not considered to have ‘raped’ her – even if considerable violence was used. By definition a husband could not rape his wife.

This ‘marital rape exemption’ was commonly attributed to a ruling by Sir Matthew Hale in 1736. According to Hale, a wife gave lifelong consent to sexual intercourse with her husband. Under marriage vows husband and wife became ‘one person under the law’. It was a contract that ‘she cannot retract’. Thereafter, as A Treatise on the Law of Domestic Relations (1870) put it, ‘wilfully declining matrimonial intimacy and companionship’ was nothing short of a ‘breach of duty, tending to subvert the true ends of marriage’.

From Joanna Bourke’s: Rape. A History from 1860 to the Present. Chapter 11: The Home

Perhaps Tracey Cox is unaware that the marital rape exemption was done away with in this country in 1992, and that to assert “I do” when reciting the marriage vows no longer equates in law to signing a contract that says “I hereby grant my husband lifelong access to and total control over my vagina”

To quote Susan Brownmiller:

“In the cool judgement of right-thinking women, compulsory sexual intercourse is not a husband’s right in marriage, for such a ‘right’ gives the lie to any concept of equality and human dignity. Consent is better arrived at by husband and wife afresh each time, for if women are to be what we believe we are – equal partners – then intercourse must be construed as an act of mutual desire and not as a wifely ‘duty,’ enforced by the permissible threat of bodily harm or of economic sanctions”

“The will of the married woman who learns to accept routinized rape is no longer ruled by or even connected to her desires. Eventually, her desires are no longer a product of what she enjoys or what she has learned to enjoy. What the victim of routinized rape within marriage does, sexually, is a product not of what the victim wills but of what her attacker demands. As an immediate consequence, her will becomes a function not of her desires but of his desires. Eventually her desires become a function not of her pleasures, but of his pleasures; she wants literally to please him rather than herself because to please herself is too dangerous. The victim of marital rape gains survival, but she sacrifices self-sovereignty. In other words, she sacrifices the ability to control her own will and to determine her own actions, pleasures, and desires, free from external influence. In short, she sacrifices selfhood.”

Robin West: Equality Theory, Marital Rape, and the Promise of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Quoted in Sex Equality: Rape Law by Catharine A. MacKinnon)

Now unlike Tracey Cox I make no pretence to being a “sex therapist”, but for what it’s worth my response to the original letter writer would be:

“If your husband is hassling you for sex when you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t want it, he obviously has no respect whatsoever for your feelings. He does not have a right to expect sex from you, and no right to demand it of you against your own wishes and desires. And if he’s unable to wait until you’re ready for it, or to respect your rights as an individual to have sex on your own terms, then I’d question his suitability to be your life partner. Seriously, you deserve better than this”

This reminds me of a cartoon: A man and woman are in a doctor’s office and the doctor is saying: “So, lets get this straight. You say it’s hardly ever, you say its all the time. But you’re both agreed it’s twice a week?”

I’m going to be controversial. Please bear with me, you’re going to get cross reading this, but this is so that I can ask a question at the end.

Please bear with me.

Firstly, the ‘duty-shag’ (a pretty unpleasant phrase) is not the same as coerced rape. The duty shag is doing something for your spouse because you love them and want to please them, even if you could take it or leave it.
This is not the same as going through with it because you’re frightened or cowed by an overbearing partner.
Second, being unenthusiastic is not the same as actively not wanting it.

There may be a spectrum here, but to conflate these very different circumstances is wrong.

The advice has been badly worded. What I think Tracey Cox is trying to say is while there is no Right, but the relationship will be damaged if one partner abstains from sex indefinitely and completely, while the other partner still has a desire.

There is no perfect solution when one partner doesn’t share the interests of the other. With most things it doesn’t matter, Jack can go to the train spotters’ club while Jill goes dancing. No problem. Sex is different. You’re only allowed to do it with your spouse.

So there are only a small number of outcomes to this situation:
– Irreparable damage to an otherwise good relationship as one partner, constantly denied, becomes increasingly resentful and perhaps ends up seeking another relationship.
– The unenthusiastic partner participates in an activity for which they are unenthusiastic.

People do this all the time. It really is part of the give and take of relationships. No one gets everything their own way all the time.

Up to this point I haven’t made any reference to gender, because it really is irrelevant. I wonder if the ordure that Tracey Cox has had dumped upon her above would have been used if the genders were reversed and her advice was to a husband to buck up and satisfy his wife once in a while, after all she needs to feel like a woman, right?

But now for a few stereotypes: my apologies.
Men get dragged around the shopping centers of Britain every week. This activity is, famously, more stressful than flying a fighter jet (though in reality, probably not). But I’ll bet most men don’t want to do it. I’ll bet they can think of a hundred ways they’d prefer to spend their day other than being glorified pack-horse an wallet carrier. But no, despite their own preferences there they are sharing with their wives and girlfriends something that their wives and girlfriends enjoy. No one forced them or coerced them. That doesn’t mean they want to be there. But, a bit of give and take makes a relationship.

That’s what Tracey Cox meant. Not “It’s OK to rape your wife.”

Sex is different, it’s even more important to give and take a bit, because your wife or girlfriend is allowed to go shopping with her mates instead if you don’t fancy it. But you are definitely not allowed to shag her mates when she doesn’t feel like it.

If there is a permanent mismatch in the relative desires of the two parties, then there would be serious questions about the viability of the relationship. If it is medium term, and they both value their relationship, then there’s going to have to be some give and take.

What is so wrong with wanting to make a relationship work by taking part in activities that your spouse is interested in, that you can take or leave?

not that i expect anything more from tracey cox (who had one method of sex therapy called “lets make a tv show about your secx life – that’ll fix the problem) but what she has written there is shocking.

but this is all too familiar. with the shoe on the other foot, i read an article in marie claire (train journey, bored) about what to do if your boyfriend doesn’t want to have sex with you. the article summed up by saying “but be honest, maybe it’s you. have you been slobbing out in tracksuits or put on weight?”

no where in this article or in tracey cox’s article was it suggested that you should talk to you partner, discuss why you feel this way, discuss the problems you might be experiencing etc etc.

the whole phrasing in cox’s response, her whole attitude to women’s bodily autnomy is frightening! and what if you’re not married? are you allowed to not feel like sex then? or do you only give up your right to say no when you are married? rage rage rage!

yes james i take your point that a duty shag isn’t the same as coercive rape but having been someone who in the past has consented to sex when most decidedly not wanting to (something i don’t do any more thank goodness!) i can tell you it leaves you feeling horrible, cheap and used. i am sure her husband would not want to make her feel that way. sex is about mutuality and feeling comfortable with someone, and having fun! surely that is what is most important! and half consenting to duty sex is not about that.

and james i know you apologised for using strerotypes but
a) shopping is not really a fair example is it? it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.
b) wallet carriers? surely you are not suggesting that men fund women’s shopping trips! please tell me i’ve misunderstood you because that is flabbergasting!!

sianushka,
Shopping is obviously not a bodily autonomy issue, but I was looking for an activity that would be uncontroversial in the gender preference arena!
The wallet carrier comment was a more provocative gender stereotype. I wanted to use it to expose how imbalanced this article is to the stereotype that men want it all the time and women do not.
Flabbergasted is what I want, because while the suggestion that ‘There’s no real rape in marriage’ has rightfully been consigned to history, the response above to Tracey Cox takes no account whatsoever of the man’s feelings. I find that flabbergasting, too.

The rise is body dysmorphic disorders and self-esteem based mental problems in men, so familiar in young women, is a genuine issue. They are born of the same feelings of rejection and inadequacy and sex and sexual attractiveness are the crucibles in which the feelings fester. Here we have a young couple, recently married and suddenly she is consistently and routinely rejecting his advances. Of course he is concerned, frustrated and seeking validations.

Your circumstance, described in your first post, would absolutely fall outside the realm I was targeting, the ‘take it or leave it’. I think you were the victim of coercive rape. And it was wrong. You have no need to feel cheap or horrible. You were used. He is the horrible, cheap party.
No real man (I consider myself to be one) would wish the feelings you had on a woman they loved.

I have the difficulty that I’m trying to draw a line between *not* wanting it and being indifferent. Of course the difficulty arises that while there is a line there somewhere, there is no clear, natural place to mark it.

She worded it terribly, but there are subtly different meanings to the word ‘expect’ here. Expecting sex from your partner because you feel entitled to it, above and beyond their wishes, is clearly wrong. But I think it’s fair to expect sex in the sense of ‘it’s perfectly reasonable, given the circumstances, to anticipate it’. Sex is usually part of a committed, romantic relationship, and a rejected partner is bound to feel confused and hurt. It kind of goes with the territory of romantically loving someone that you want to be intimate with them, make them feel good, etc.

That said, the husband in the article sounds like an absolute dick. I can’t think of anything I’d enjoy less than a partner doing something out of duty, and the fact he just ‘wants’ it when he knows she doesn’t hardly speaks well on how much he cares about her.

James, the problem is the onus is ALL on the woman to do something she doesn’t want to, no one is even daring to suggest the man goes without to ‘save the relationship’. There’s no advice to the bloke going ‘maybe you could distract yourself by reading a book, or getting a new hobby, maybe you just have to put up with not getting it as often to save your relationship’.
If there was even a hint of equally sharing the burden here it wouldn’t be half the prpblem ir is, but no; someone is suggesting a woman give up control over her body and submit to an experince she doesn’t want, which is something no loving partner should ever expect anyone to do.

Why isn’t anyone asking these blokes, ‘if you love your partner why are you coercing her into doing something she doesn’t want? ‘ or to put it blunlty, ‘why are you raping her?’.

It just perpetuates this bullshit myth that men are insatiable sexual beasts who can’t possibly be asked to have any control over their actions. (is going without sex for 6 months or whatever really such a hideous thing? sex isn’t a RIGHT , even within a relationship, sure it’s great if you both want it but if you don’t no one has any grounds to demand it, it’s not an entitlement, which is what this ‘advice’ is implying.

That whole ‘without a good reason’ , thus implying that a woman’s desires and consent aren’t ‘a good reason’ which is quite frankly terrifying and horrendously insulting.

I’d much raher have a life of celibacy than end up in a relationship with someone who assumes they have a right over MY body and pays no heed to my feelings.

‘Duty shag’ what about a ‘duty stop moaning and just have a wank for gods sake, you’re not entitled to anything and if you have to go without for a bit then boo hoo it’s hardly the end of the world is it? ‘

damagedoor
I think your second paragraph:
——————-
That said, the husband in the article sounds like an absolute dick. I can’t think of anything I’d enjoy less than a partner doing something out of duty, and the fact he just ‘wants’ it when he knows she doesn’t hardly speaks well on how much he cares about her.
——————
Is something we can all agree on!

In fundamentalist Christian circles in the US, they call it “fake it till you make it”. It’s basically the idea that because a wife’s duty and purpose is to honour and please her husband in all things as the domestic agent of God, it is her duty not only to passively submit to his sexual advances even if she doesn’t want to engage in sex, but to actively entice him by being attractive, submissive and willing, so he will have sex with her often and help sire that “quiverful” of children.

What’s interesting is that while the US wingnuts put a moniker on this that at least distantly allows for a woman’s pleasure (you end up “making it” if you follow the advice, or so it is alleged), this so called modern “sex therapist” doesn’t even give a nod in that direction. It’s a duty, period.

Cath, the only bit where I would differ from you is that I think it would be more constructive to help the letter writer concentrate on her own desires and emotions by examining why her sex drive has waned, and potentially talking out with her husband things that he could do to help before just dumping him. The “shag him anyway / don’t shag him in any way” dichotomy seems non-optimal from the point of view of helping this woman get back some pleasure from her marriage.

* I thought, as James said, there’s a difference between ‘duty shags’ and marital rape – although it’s clearly not going to be good sex – a hand job would be a better compromise.

* I thought was that the husband sounded like he’s probably a dick, as damagedoor stated.

* James, there is quite a clear line. It follows “No.” followed by “Oh go on.” followed by “No.” again. If the woman is unable to bring herself to say no in the first place, then I’d suggest there’s something very wrong with the balance of power in the relationship, and that it should still be pretty obvious to the man that it isn’t wanted.

* Tanzania is one country where there’s no such thing as marital rape. A husband can be done for assault, if his wife reports it. Which she probably won’t. That was the first thing I thought of when I started reading this post.

Chloe,
I really fail to see how you can interpret the phrase ‘give and take’ with only one partner changing their behaviour, unless you are being wilfully obstinate.

Again your second paragraph commits the same conflation disposed of earlier.

Your third paragraph shows your ignorance. Of course a man isn’t an insatiable beast, nor is it unacceptable for a woman to withhold sex for 6 months or six years for that matter. It is, however, unrealistically teenage to think that her man will stick around (or at least not play around).

In the same way as it is not an entitlement for a man to have sex in a relationship, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ask himself, “How is this relationship different from any of my other friendships?” It is perfectly acceptable, and reasonable for him to feel that he is not, in fact, part of a romantic or sexual relationship and to pursue those human, meaningful and rewarding emotions and fulfillments elsewhere.
It isn’t an entitlement for a man (or woman) to expect to have sex in a relationship. It also isn’t an entitlement for a woman (or man) to expect to have a relationship in which their partner is unfulfilled as a human.

As for your arrogant appeal for a ‘Duty stop moaning and just have a wank for gods sake, you’re not entitled to anything and if you have to go without for a bit then boo hoo it’s hardly the end of the world is it?’
This chap probably has done that. He probably felt that he might not have only that in his sex life.
What about “Duty, you’re dumped because we are obviously incompatible and I’ve met someone else while you’ve been turning away from my expression of love and caring. Boo hoo it’s hardly the end of the world is it?”

As I said (if you re-read my post) there is definitely a line there as you say:
—————
It follows “No.” followed by “Oh go on.” followed by “No.” again.
—————
I say it isn’t clear exactly where in between the two it lies. For example, must a woman say ‘No’,(in other words, the line is right up against the ‘no’) or is it (as I would think) enough for her to simply be unenthusiastic in her actions and words? (in other words, the line may in fact be on the opposite side of ‘Oh, go on, then’!)

This difficulty is age old. everyone has a different answer, each one has merit and demerit.

One of the major problems with our rape laws is the inability to objectively standardise what is required for consent to be certain and for lack of consent to be certain.
The extremes of the spectrum are obvious, the middle ground can be argued.

Ooh, James, I mostly agreed with you until that comment. You’ve now kind of expressed the view that it’s the woman’s fault if the man is unfaithful because she withheld sex. Are you sure that’s what you meant?

It’s perfectly possible for the man not to play around. That’s not to say there’s no shared responsibility. But he’d be the one doing the unfaithful bit, even if he felt pushed away first.

I agree completely with Marina (and with you James) that “no kind of sex” is almost certainly not a workable solution.

For what it’s worth, if you follow the link in the post, Cox clarifies her position slightly in the comment trail:

“It was … a case of “I can’t be bothered making the effort so why should I?”.
It’s idealistic to expect both of you to always be turned on at the same time. The argument for having sex with your partner, even if you’re not drooling with anticipation, sliding off your seat or frothing at the mouth for it, should simply be that you love them, value the relationship and want to make them happy sexually. And because you know they would do the same thing for you.”

James,
I agree the relationship is f*cked, whether or not he cheats on her isn’t the issue, the issue is this ‘advice’ codones what is essentially rape. Yes they should talk about things, yes the bloke probably does feel unloved and shunned, which is undertsandbale, but that is still no excuse for him to demand sex from her when she doesn’t want it.

Are you arguing women should expect to have sex regardless of if they want it or not or else end up dumped???
That’s not so much ‘give and take’ as ’emotional blackmail’.

‘I’ll leave you, or cheat on you if we don’t have sex and it’ll all be YOUR fault becuase you didn’t give me sex when I wanted it’ or ‘Militant obstinacy’ , the latter is certainly prefrable IMHO.

James, I think it’s generally going to be really fucking obvious if a woman doesn’t really want sex. It’s surely not to much for a man to ask a woman “are you sure?” if she seems less than enthusiastic.

And if you are married to someone you should be able to read them fairly well. We’re not talking about drunken one-night-stands here.

It’s absolutely not what I meant. If two people are not compatible it isn’t a fault issue. They’re just incompatible. If he sees a sexless life ahead (remember in the example the six months is a open-ended measurement and if they haven’t talked about the reasons, as they appear not to have done, he has no reason to feel that there might be an improvement in -er- his fortunes) and if he is inclined to be faithless, then he may follow that path. I’m saying that as a recognition of reality, not as a judgment or as a laying of blame.

Phil, I’ve been married for 14 years, and yes, I can read my wife pretty darned well, just as she can read me. I know I’d never get away with cheating on her because she’d see through me in a second. I might as well wear a t-shirt announcing what I’d done!

And yes, I can tell if my wife is already in the mood, receptive to a try or those occasions when it’s really not worth the trouble of trying!

But for some, no I think some men are literal enough to think that “Go on then,” means “Yes” as opposed to “I’d rather not if that’s OK.” or “I’d rather not.” or even “Oh, God, I suppose I must.”
Just as some men can’t tell when their wife or girlfriend fakes an orgasm.

Chloe,
————-
Are you arguing women should expect to have sex regardless of if they want it or not or else end up dumped?
————-
That’s transparently not what I said. It is an unacceptable suggestion. It is however true that some men will feel that if they’re not getting from a relationship an aspect that they desire, whether it is professional support, someone to talk to in the evenings, someone to cuddle by the fire, or someone to make love with, they will decide to cut their losses and find someone else.

I’m not judging that as right or wrong, merely recognising the reality of it.

What is equally unacceptable as your suggestion is the idea that a woman can be so insensitive to her husband’s feelings that she not even talk about the problem.

Flipping eck Cath’ has this blog turned into CiF? Anyway it turns out all Cox’s advice is curiously old fashioned.

Take this for instance.

Q.Once someone says they are gay, does it mean they are gay for life? My sister has just come out but I think it’s more a rebellious stage she’s going through, despite her insisting she is a lesbian.

A.This could well be a stage your sister is going through and the best reaction to have is to be accepting of whatever she decides. The fact is our sexuality is fluid throughout our life. It is possible to be ‘gay’ for a period of months or years, then straight for the rest of your life, or vice versa. Lots of straight people have one or two sexual encounters with the same sex before deciding which sex suits them best.

Hmm I seem to remember hearing Cathy and Claire say something similar in Jackie magazine. How about “stop telling your sister what she is and keep your big nose out”?

Oh and later on she says to someone “It took you years to get used to the idea of being gay or lesbian”. Really?

James Idirs, if two people are not getting along in a relationship then one of them has the right to end it, no disagreement there. That’s not the same as saying someone has a ‘right’ to sex. What right thinking person would want to have sex with someone who clearly didn’t want it anyway?

Firstly, the ‘duty-shag’ (a pretty unpleasant phrase) is not the same as coerced rape. The duty shag is doing something for your spouse because you love them and want to please them, even if you could take it or leave it.
This is not the same as going through with it because you’re frightened or cowed by an overbearing partner.
Second, being unenthusiastic is not the same as actively not wanting it.

There may be a spectrum here, but to conflate these very different circumstances is wrong.

I disagree. This is from a study into unwanted sexual activity among married women in Urban China

One issue is whether the forms of unwanted sexual activity reported here–for example, engaging in sex only to please one’s husband–were so mild in form that they were of little consequence for a woman. The analysis of psychological distress suggested that these forms of unwanted sexual activity were of some consequence. Even after accounting for the potential feedback effects from psychological distress to unwanted sex, the significant negative effect of unwanted sexual activity on psychological well-being persisted. Though perhaps not as extreme as the psychological consequences of rape and battering (Campbell, 2002; Gidycz & Koss, 1991; Mandoki & Burkhart, 1991), significant effects were present nevertheless–suggesting that unwanted sexual activity is a phenomenon meriting further inquiry……….In urban China, the proportion of married women experiencing unwanted sexual activity within their marriage was as high, or higher, than in other societies. Even when physical force was not the dominant cause of unwanted sexual activity, this activity had significant negative consequences for psychological well-being.

This is from a research study into unwanted sex among young married women in India:

Our findings suggest several programmatic considerations. The substantial levels of unwanted sex observed in this study, particularly among recently married young women, clearly indicate that sexual and reproductive health programs must recognize that many of their clients are having sex against their expressed will. Whether their goal is to assist women in protecting themselves from HIV infection or to provide women with contraception, such programs must incorporate education and counseling services to help prevent sexual coercion within marriage and address its adverse effects on sexual and reproductive health. Programmatic efforts to change the norms that give men the sense of entitlement to have sex with their wives whenever they desire and those that condone violence against women are also indicated.

“Increasingly, researchers have begun to use broad definitions of sexual violence to more fully understand many women’s experiences of “unwanted sex” or sex out of a sense of obligation or “wifely duty” (Basile, 2002; DeKeseredy & Joseph, in press; Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985). For example, Finkelhor and Yllo (1985) note the importance of social coercion (the pressure women feel to have sex as a result of social and cultural expectations of marriage as an institution) and interpersonal coercion (women who feel pressured to have sex when nonviolent threats such as withholding money or child support are made) in women’s experiences of marital rape. In their study of women who are sexually assaulted when they are separated or divorced from their partners, DeKeseredy and Joseph (in press) classify women’s experiences into four categories including sexual contact, sexual coercion (which includes unwanted intercourse as a result of verbal pressure), attempted rape, and rape. Each of these conceptualizations is important in helping us to understand the complexities and nuances of women’s experiences of sexual violence with their
partners.”

This kind of sex out of a sense of obligation is what has been dubbed rape by acquiescence, a term that distinguishes this kind of sex from consensual sex and, I would argue, places it firmly on the rape and sexual violence spectrum.

See, I don’t think anyone has a *right* to sex, especially not a “duty shag”. I mean, really, if it’s not any fun, why bother?

If I were Ms Cox I’d maybe wonder *why* the woman didn’t want to have sex with her husband, was it because he was a crap shag? But I wouldn’t dispute her right to say no, and persuade her to shag him out of a sense of duty.

“Your husband has a right to expect regular sex and ‘duty shags’, I’m afraid, are all part of the ‘working at the relationship’ that experts rattle on about.”

What utter crap. Well thats what I think now. In a previous life I remember taking that advice. I remember the sympathy shags and the duty shags and they both massively contributed to the end of the relationship. Those duty shags were due to pressure and coercion. They were abuse and rape by acquiescence. Heterosexual sex is penetrative and invasive. Who and what you allow inside your body should only ever be by free choice, anything less than free choice is not ok. Shame on you Tracey Cox.

Agree with you Cath that ‘sex out of a sense of obligation is in fact rape by acquiescence.’ As the researchers you quoted have found.

No matter how it is worded we come back to the age old male demand that they should have ‘sex’ with their female partners whenever and however they wish and if the female partner refuses for whatever reason – she not the male is to blame. Either that or the female partner is ‘frigid’ prudish or failing in her wifely duty.

It is only recently that marital rape has been criminalised because for too long the presumption was once a woman marries a man she automatically forfeits her bodily integrity and instead is just a vessel for the man to use/abuse at will.

Nor should we forget how power within relationships operate because it still continues to be men who hold power rather than women and given all women learn as children and teenagers that ‘sex’ is supposedly something women ‘give to men’ and for men it is ‘their supposed right once a committed relationship has begun’ it is not surprising so many women believe there is something wrong with them if they refuse the man sexual access to their bodies.

No man has the right of sexual access to a woman’s body and this applies to husbands/males in committed heterosexual relationships or dating a woman.

Why is it so hard to accept? The answer is because pseudo male sex right to women and girls has been a ‘given’ for centuries and is also the reason why marital rape was for too long not viewed as male sexual violence against women.

But we still have sex therapists such as Tracy Cox effectively condoning marital rape because whilst these therapists tell women they have the right not to engage in sexual activity if they do not wish, they are told by the sex therapist ‘but you should at least try and make the effort because the poor man is suffering from lack of penetrative sexual activity.’

Clever is it not – on the one hand telling the woman she has the right to say no but on the other hand making her feel guilty for not assisting the man to release his pent-up sexual feelings. Ever heard of a hand because the hand has many uses including sexual release.

Is a man claiming ‘rights’ over a partner’s bodily autonomy by expecting her to be sexually faithful to him? Because it doesn’t seem so different: it’s the expectation of what being in a relationship means.

While I agree that nobody should feel coerced into sex, I don’t think Cox is saying they should. I also think she would give exactly the same advice if the sexes in the question had been reversed. Which, of course, in real life they often are.

Is a man claiming ‘rights’ over a partner’s bodily autonomy by expecting her to be sexually faithful to him? Because it doesn’t seem so different: it’s the expectation of what being in a relationship means.

It depends on what you ‘expect’ it is the answer to that. It may be ‘the expectation of what being in a relationship means’ as far as you’re concerned, but not everyone thinks the same.

It is up to two people to negotiate this stuff between them. If you expect sexual “fidelity” and your partner doesn’t then obviously there’s a problem, however there’s an even bigger problem in taking it for granted.

It’s worth exploring the origins of the whole concept of monogamy questioningly as well. What is the real purpose of pressure to be sexually ‘faithful’?Well I’d say that it’s a lot to do with controlling women’s sexuality actually.

To assume that monogamy is automatic indicates a particular world view.

Reading comments that argue the toss between rape and ‘unwanted sex’ makes my heart squeeze. I used to be in a relationship like that. Actually, more than one, thinking about it. That’s the very circumstances under which I was raped. The exes in question would make it clear that they wanted to get off, I’d say ‘no’, they’d continue to hassle and harrass me or sulk in a corner until I eventually said ‘oh, alright.’ These men did nothing to make me feel like having sex and the continued expectation of sexual access to my body resulted in me feeling like an overly-complicated wank sock. I even used to have a ‘blow up doll’ shirt that I wore, ironically. Needless to say, it’s taken a long time to reclaim my body and sexuality as my own again.

I gave up on “duty shags” or rather “not wanting to be mean to him shags” aka “oh go on then shags” a long while ago. I found they had a negative effect on my sex drive. The initial nagging & whininess wasn’t very attractive to me either, surprise. The brilliant simplicity of deciding only to have sex when I actually want to was a stunning revelation and I still get a kind of heady thrill from asserting the choice.

That Robin West quote has it right :
“The will of the married woman who learns to accept routinized rape is no longer ruled by or even connected to her desires. Eventually, her desires are no longer a product of what she enjoys or what she has learned to enjoy. ”

It’s that disconnection from the self that freaks me out – and as a heterosexual woman in this male-serving culture, woman-objectifying culture, that disconnection was already fostered in me without any need for coercion. I could have easily gone through life just adequately performing “sexy”. One day I realised, I’m not inhabiting my own body, I’m looking from the outside, identifying with the male gaze. Where the hell am I (as in my sense of self) during sex?What do I actually feel?

The “duty wank” is of course the fucking obvious solution to this couple’s problem. He gets an orgasm. She gets not driven up the wall by him. If the orgasm isn’t enough for him, then surprise, maybe they’ll realise that what he’s actually demanding is the ego-validation of his partner putting herself out for his sake. Or that he requires her to go through the motions just enough for him to fantasise that she’s into it. Kind of like live-in porn.

The main personal reason I would never freely choose to go into sex work, aside from the institutionalised misogyny and gender inequality and all, is because I don’t want sex to be work. Hetero sex is largely women’s work, paid or unpaid, another service provided to a man.

(I often wonder why the Hite Report isn’t referenced much these days – it showed that dissatisfying, disappointing sex was the norm for het women.)

It’s worth exploring the origins of the whole concept of monogamy questioningly as well. What is the real purpose of pressure to be sexually ‘faithful’?Well I’d say that it’s a lot to do with controlling women’s sexuality actually.

To assume that monogamy is automatic indicates a particular world view.

Yeah, I agree. And, of course, couples can negotiate that. But if a guy wrote to Tracy Cox saying “Well, I slept with another woman, and is my wife really justified in objecting to that?” then I doubt many people would be defending his right to bodily autonomy and attacking her presumed right to control it. Or vice versa. There are just certain expectations in most relationships that go both ways, irrespective of gender/sex. Fidelity tends to be one; sexual interest tends to be another. Someone has no more literal right to prevent their partner sleeping with someone else than they do to insist on sex – but both are reasonable enough expectations if you’re in a monogamous relationship with someone. They go with the territory.

I don’t think Tracy Cox’s advice is good – I think it’s shit. I don’t understand how the husband in the case could happily have sex knowing his wife wasn’t into it – that means he doesn’t care about her, surely? For me, it would ruin the whole experience before it started.

At the same time, her advice, as bad as it is, goes both ways. If you’re a guy who loses interest in sex, there’s plenty of societal stress and pressure too. For every “maybe it’s your fault because you’ve put on too much weight” article (as mentioned above), there’s a “dump the chump and find a real man who can satisfy you” article. And most of the spam I receive is “satisfy your woman or else she’ll leave you” messages. I’ve had sex plenty of times when I didn’t really want to, partly because of that, but mainly because I loved someone and wanted to make them happy, even if I wasn’t particularly into it right then.

There are certainly historical aspects to that – and legitimised marital rape is a shameful, awful thing – and you should never have sex if you really don’t want to, but I don’t think, as bad as her advice is, Tracy Cox is really promoting that.

I get that spam too damagedoor. But if you look at the answers I’ve printed above, Tracey Cox seems to think it’s only men who are entitled to sex. Women who’ve gone without sex for 12 years risk throwing away a ‘lovely, albeit challenged relationship’, if they start demanding duty shags.

Since I had my op I’ve been frequenting (lurking not commenting on) a very popular hysterectomy support site. Now one of the main pieces of advice you’re given after a hysterectomy is no sexual intercourse for at least 6 weeks. Nothing in the vagina, nada, until you get the all clear at your post-op consultation. And even then, depending on how things are looking, you might be told to wait a bit longer.

Well I’ve been stunned at the numbers of women commenting on that site who’ve said stuff like

“My Nigel’s getting really impatient. I don’t think he can wait 6 weeks. But I’m sure it’ll be fine to do it now so long as we’re careful…”

Gahhh!

Unsurprisingly there are also some horrendous accounts on there of what has happened to women whose Nigels couldn’t wait. Of their new surgically built cervix’s (or vaults as they’re called here [vaginal cuffs in US speak]) being ruptured/torn, of peritoneal fluid leaking out of them, and of the emergency repair surgery they’ve then had to endure to have it all stitched back up again.

I mean seriously. Wtf is wrong with these men that they’re pressuring their wives into having sex when they’re not medically fit to have bloody sex!

I’ve not looked at the site for a few weeks, because the urge to go on there and let rip with one of my rants was becoming almost too strong to resist.

Maybe it could be dealt with via the Protection from Harassment Act. It states that:
A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) Which amounts to harassment of an other and
(b) Which he knows or ought to have known amounts to harassment of the other

Within the Act Harassment means – “alarming the person or causing the person distress” “conduct includes speech”
Restraining Orders can be made – breach of the restraining order can invoke a prison term of up to 6 months (5 years if person fears violence).

Just out of curiosity, does anyone think `rape by acquiescence` should be classified as an actual crime?

I think no, for three reasons.

First off, as I understand it, a woman can’t legally rape a man. That would have to change, as the type of situation Cox is describing is completely independent of sex. Second, it seems to deny the autonomy of the ‘victim’. And if they’re so psychologically beaten down they can’t tell their partner to stop pestering them, I’d suspect that might already constitute a crime. (Might be wrong). Thirdly, it’d be completely impossible to prove.

I think it’s more about a shift in attitude: the idea that – while sex is generally an important part of a relationship, and the lack of it might well signify the end of it – pestering your partner for sex when they don’t want it (or shouldn’t have it) is the opposite of what a loving relationship should be.

Hi Xander. Personally I agree with damagedoor. It has to be about a shift in attitudes, about changing the script so that women no longer feel they’re obligated to or duty bound to provide sex on anyone’s terms but their own.

But I reserve the right to change my mind, because I’m currently awaiting the arrival of a really interesting sounding book where the author argues for a complete reassessment and overhaul of the rape laws to include precisely these scenarios (I think: I might be wrong though). So watch this space.

“In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan’s second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.”

Maria S says
It’s that disconnection from the self that freaks me out – and as a heterosexual woman in this male-serving culture, woman-objectifying culture, that disconnection was already fostered in me without any need for coercion. I could have easily gone through life just adequately performing “sexy”. One day I realised, I’m not inhabiting my own body, I’m looking from the outside, identifying with the male gaze. Where the hell am I (as in my sense of self) during sex?What do I actually feel?

and i just want to agree with all of it. and repeat it because it should be heard.

damagedoor says:
If you’re a guy who loses interest in sex, there’s plenty of societal stress and pressure too. For every “maybe it’s your fault because you’ve put on too much weight” article (as mentioned above), there’s a “dump the chump and find a real man who can satisfy you” article. And most of the spam I receive is “satisfy your woman or else she’ll leave you” messages.

hmm, but the flip side of that is in glossy woman’s magazines, like that nasty marie claire article i mentioned above, are woman blaming as well. they blame the fact that the man doesn#t want to have sex on the woman putting on weight and wearing sweat pants! i’m not making it up, i couldn’t believe my eyes. so no one wins really.

it just seems to me that communication should be advised. beng able to express your desires or lack of them means that you can re-dsicover your bodily autonomy and recognise when you are actively consenting.
as i said, i’ve done the whole oh ok, i’ll go along with this. it doesn’t feel great. but now that i don’t do that anymore, and put my own body and my own desires in the picture, rather than, as Maria S says, seeing myself through the gaze of another, i have become much happier and stronger. this was a slow process, but came from being able to communicate and express myself, rather than repressing my own voice.
argh – that’s so garbled but the point is in there somewhere!

I have mixed feelings about this issue, having been on both sides of the divide (him wanting more, him not wanting as much as me). And my first inclination was to partly agree with TC – not that anyone has a right to sex, but that it is part of a relationship, and therefore that no sex at all for an extended period of time is symptomatic of serious problems.

But then I thought of how recently women in Britain were given legal protection against marital rape (well, in theory) and about how wives and partners all over the world are coerced into sex daily, and I agree with the majority of comments here that the word ‘duty’ should never feature in advice about sex.

Cath, that story about the hysterectomy wives is horrifying! I bet many commenters and lurkers would be very grateful for one of your persuasive rants; the relief of seeing a dissenting voice is often amazing.

Rape requires penetration with a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth, so no a woman can’t rape a man alone, though she could be guilty of the crime if she was an accomplice as part of a joint enterprise. She could also be guilty of assault by penetration, which carries the same maximum sentence – life imprisonment.

And at the risk of sounding like Dan, no I don’t think that the situation Cox describes is ‘entirely independent of sex’. For starters, if it’s penetrative penis in orifice sex you’re after, it’s pretty damn hard (pardon the pun) if the penis owner isn’t up to it.

And be honest damagedoor, have you ever heard the way that women who pressure men for sex, or even ask men for sex are talked about? Pressuring women for sex is seen as a totally normal male activity, whereas women who pursue sex are slags, sluts, bikes, etc etc etc…. so it’s not an activity that’s evenly balanced between the sexes I’d wager.

I’ve honestly never heard a woman in a relationship with a man – wanting more sex with that man – described as a slag, slut or bike. I think that terminology is vile, regardless (have sex with who you want, as many as you want, whenever you want), but surely it’s generally applied outside of relationships? Pursuing sex with random people?

Guys in relationships where the woman wants more sex than them don’t generally talk about it, in my experience. It’s a ‘not being man enough’ thing.

And trust me, the “penis owner” can pretty easily get hard. It’s kind of offensive, actually, Polly: you know that men can get hard-ons when they’re being anally raped, right? Maybe you don’t know that, but it’s a physical response, and it doesn’t signify consent.

The point is just that, as things stand, women don’t rape men, either legally or, perhaps with the occasional very, very rare exception, circumstantially. But if you want to use the word rape in terms of “partner A is pestering partner B for sex when partner B doesn’t really want to, could say no, but doesn’t” then you’re going to have to accept that women can rape men, and do – at least in this sense – quite a lot of the time.

I do think, generally, this isn’t a massive deal. People in relationships, sex isn’t a terrible thing, surely? If you want to duty shag then go for it. It’s the pestering element that bothers me, because it implies a lack of understanding and empathy – that plain old getting off is more important to you than being with soneone you’re supposed to love. Surely you accept your partner’s position, or – eventually – you walk away. Nobody should feel beaten down. And if your partner is beating you down then they’re not the one for you, whatever sex they are.

This is not a particularly useful comment but just want to say that I totally relate to what you have written. For many years I was so completly disconnected from my own feelings that I would rarly even consider if I actually wanted to have sex with my boyfriend. I didn’t even see it as a duty I just thought that was how things were. The main pleasure I got from sex was through pleasuring him…

It was such a revalation when I realised that all this time I hadn’t actually considered my own desire at all. I find it really quite scary when I think how totally disconnected I was -I would even have said at the time I had a good sex life!

Men can get hard ons when they’re being anally raped presumably because the prostate is being stimulated and it’s an involuntary response. But I’m not talking about rape, or putting pressure on men to be penetrated. I’m talking about putting pressure on them to penetrate you.

My point being that if a man really doesn’t want to put his penis into another person,(not being penetrated) any amount of “lie back and think of England” isn’t going to be able to make him be aroused.

It isn’t necessary for a woman to be aroused at all to have sex. That’s the difference.

And I don’t know what planet you live on, but men have put pressure on ME to have sex with them, and believe me I have not encouraged them, or given any kind of positive indication whatsoever. I have hardly ever seen a woman behave similarly to men, and if she does she gets called a lot of nasty names.

If you are really saying that societally, men pressuring women for sex isn’t regarded as more normal and acceptable than vice versa, you’re either just fibbing, or you live somewhere very strange. And if you’re saying that once people get into relationships they immediately discard all social “norms” that exist outside relationships you’re also being a bit economical with the actualite I reckon.

Yeah, I agree that, outside of relationships, men are far more likely to put pressure on women for sex than vice versa. And that it’s seen as more socially acceptable.

But inside a relationship, where there’s a reasonable ‘expectation’ of sex taking place, I don’t think there’s anything like the same difference. Part of being in a relationship with someone is that there’s usually a sexual element, and either partner can feel pressured into having sex when they don’t really want to. I’m not saying it’s worse for guys, but the social pressure to ‘perform’ is certainly there. I can’t imagine ever hearing a man tell his friends “she wants it far more than me, and I’m just not interested” because it’s almost an admission of being sexually inadequate.

Sorry about the anal rape thing: it wasn’t the best way to make the point. Of course, if a man is totally unwilling, a woman will have obvious problems raping him. But “rape by acquiescence”, as described upthread, wouldn’t be about physical force, would it? It would be about psychological browbeating and pestering, so one partner went along with sex because they felt they should rather than because they wanted to. And it’s perfectly possible to get a hard on even if, mentally, you really don’t want to have sex; it’s a mechanical thing.

What irks me is that this kind of shit only applies to male/female relationships. What if some guy wanted to play tennis with his friend, and his friend didn’t want to? Would you even have a situation where the guy would expect his friend to play tennis anyway? No. No one expects their friends to engage in activities that they don’t want to do. They certainly don’t write to advice columnists or take their friends to a therapist’s office and have a neutral third party tell the friend to just buck up and play tennis.

This kind of shit only comes up with male/female relationships b/c women aren’t seen as autonomous individuals whose wishes are just as important as a man’s.

“If your husband is hassling you for sex when you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t want it, he obviously has no respect whatsoever for your feelings. He does not have a right to expect sex from you, and no right to demand it of you against your own wishes and desires. And if he’s unable to wait until you’re ready for it, or to respect your rights as an individual to have sex on your own terms, ”

Ok, so then it should be also the husband’s right to refuse sex and affection whenever he wants and to only have it on his terms. Yeah, see how that will fly! Wives always think they can withhold, but if the husband withholds he must be cheating or turned gay because men never turn down sex. Wake up ladies, we men do refuse sex for the same reasons you do! If a wife withholds sex she and her girlfriends think it’s hilarious or a great way to control men. If the husband withholds sex or affection they think he’s a jerk. Oh how could he! Why the double standard ladies! My wife used these control and manipulative tactics on me until I wised up. I gave up and now I consistently turn her down. She is so frustrated and now wants to be all over me! Revenge is sweet! radical feminism has ruined the institution of marriage!

@John
WTF!! No one has advocated double standards here.
Fine, don’t have sex with your wife. I suspect that you are actually saving her a great deal of bother by consistently refusing – its what any sensible woman married to you would do.

You don’t know the details. I have treated my wife extremely well in our marriage! I have been a good faithful husband for 12 years! I helped with the kids, chores, and never had held affection from my wife. What did I get, she withheld on me and used intimacy as a tool. This should never happen and WILL always destroy a marriage. She went into perpetual mommy mode and took our marriage for granted. She even admitted it to me. The marriage counselor we saw even told her that our marriage had to come first, but she wanted no part of that. All this from a supposedly christian women. Now you tell me if this is fair! This is why I gave up. But I do not want to be away from my kids. so I couldn’t leave. They are my world now. She has also begged me not to leave. If I was indeed a jerk, she woul;d not care if I left. But i am not a jerk. I WAS a good husband and will remain a good father.

I busted my butt on a fulltime job to support my family while my wife was a stay at home mom. This is what SHE wanted. I totally supported her choice! A loving relationship is about helping each other as best you can. No, it isn’t always 50-50 but I did a helluva more than some husbands do.

You sound like you just hate all men. My condolences to your husband, ex-husband, or whatever. Hope he’s finally having GOOD sex with one of your girlfriends!

I just have to bust out laughing everytime I hear someone say they busted their arse with a full-time job while their wife stayed at home to care for the children.

I used to be a computer network engineer and worked many long hours each week… it cannot compare to the hours I put in as a stay-at-home mom. Being a wife and mother was FAR more difficult.

I have a bit of a curveball to throw into this discussion, as well.

I was with my husband 16 years. 12 of those years he abused drugs (and me emotionally, but I didn’t recognize it as such at the time) He withheld sex for most of those 12 years, as well. For the last 6 of those years we were living separately. Suddenly, when it comes to my getting involved in another relationship and becoming pregnant by another man, he thinks he has the moral high ground and continues to try to punish me in front of my daughter.

(I am speaking as a woman and answering the original question, but I feel this goes for male or female).
A man does not have the right to demand sex from his wife, but he has the right to have sex with her. When does he have the right to have sex with her ? When they both agree to it. I don’t feel it is “fair” to deny your partner sex for a very long time and expect him not to get frustrated. He will get frustrated. Six months is a long…long time. However, he doesn’t have the right to demand it.
Personally, if you don’t feel like having sex for a long time, their is something going on and you need to address it with him. But you need to be understanding that he is going to feel unwanted, extremely horney, and complain a lot.
Getting married comes with certain “expectations”, sex being one of them, but these expectations do come with certain rights to the individual to say no. Nobody HAS to do anything just because the other person wants it.
There is nothing worse than being harrassed to have sex., but it also depends on how the guy asks for it and their reaction to when they hear the “no”. If he acts like a jerk, then hell no. My ex husband would curl up next to me and whimper like a whimpering puppy for bit, and it actually made me laugh and feel guilty enough to give in at times. Other times, I would tell him it doesn’t work, so he’d roll over and go to sleep.
My current husband is a bit of a jerk about it, so I don’t give in…at all. On the contrary, it pisses me off that I will wait it out a few more days.
There are other “contracts” to marraige and none others get so much discussiont than sex.

Oh, here I see the term “regular sex”. It depends on what “regular” means to the couple. Regular to me is 2 times a week. regular to a friend of mine is everyday.
It is nice to have regular sex (when both want it) but in marraige there will be dry spells. It is never okay to demnd it. Nobody is entitled to sex from their partners.

hi all,
i came over here via pickled politics, i’m slightly familar with cath’s writings from cif.
if a woman is repeatedly coerced (even non-violently) into an act as intimate as piv sex, it is sure to to do some harm psychologically and create huge resentment.

at the same time, though(you must have known this was coming) if we accept that generally men are are more desirous of sex than women and that masturbatory activities do not appeal to everyone (and indeed in certain religious traditions it is positively disapproved of or forbidden) there needs to be some accommdation of those needs, even if its not piv sex.

i would view a man who failed to engage repatedly and over a long period of time sexually repatedly and over a long period of time, with his female partner on the basis of his not being in the mood, in the same way.

hi polly,
i think that may be true of strict interpretaions of christianity where sex is viewed only as a means of reproduction (thus josephite marriages). manual stimulation of the private parts by one’s husband or wife is certainly not disapproved of in islam. some scholars are of the view that oral sex is best avoided and that neither husband nor wife has a right to this. in parts of the us (georgia, i think) oral sex is in fact illegal and is classed as sodomy.

but i think, the general consensus is that other than anal sex (which is forbidden) anything else as long as it goes on behind closed doors and doesn’t degrade the dignity of either husband or wife is permissible. wmen are required, in the absence of psychological and physical problems, to engage in sexual intercourse however she is not required, by religious law, to enage in anything other than penetrative intercourse. that’s not to say that, muslim women do not engage sexually in different ways but if she feels that she doesn’t wish to perform oral sex, for example, she need not feel that she is sinning.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, since I am
married to a man who has emotional and physical issues with sex. I
grew up believing that sex was an integral part of most people’s
romantic relationships, and that its main value was as a unique and
powerful way to express love and connectedness. I also believed it
to be a basic biological drive for most people, as opposed to, say,
a hobby. My husband, however, grew up in a culture where men are
horndogs and women just have sex to get what they want, and in his
mind the folks who partake in that are uniformly miserable. So he
rejected it entirely and prided himself on not objectifying women.
This is complicated by the fact that he’s queer, and vanilla PIV
sex is not his thing. Now add in the libido-suppressing
antidepressants, and, well, it’s a big ol’ tangle of trouble over
here. In my mind, there are a number of factors that go into fixing
a situation like this, and the first has to be distinguishing those
couples that have healthy dynamics from those that don’t.
Pestering, hassling and emotionally manipulating your partner to
give you what you want, even though they may lie there limply, is
coercion and unacceptable; growing increasingly frustrated and
miserable in a relationship where there’s no sex, for no real
explanation, and no apparent end, is fair. To say, “Suck it up” in
this situation is really quite unbelievably callous. We all have
needs, and sex is quite reasonably called a need. The fact of the
matter is that although no person “owes” their partner sex, what
they DO owe them is TALKING ABOUT IT. In a relationship you DO owe
your partner communication. Communication obviates the dichotomy of
“Constantly refuse and make your partner miserable and resentful” /
“Have sex when you don’t want to and become miserable and
resentful”. The red flag in the original advice column, to me, was
that the wife apparently just stopped wanting sex when she
previously had, no explanation given. After six months of that,
it’s clear that her relationship with her husband was damaged, with
resentment on both sides. To me, the obvious thing is to say,
“Look, I’m not sure what’s going on with me right now; if you’ll
give me some time, I’ll think it over, and if this continues, I’ll
see the doctor and/or talk to a therapist.” No one will ever meet
their partner’s needs all the time. This isn’t an all-or-nothing
scene. I think it’s fair to say that in committed sexual
relationships, partners have a right to expect sex in the big
picture, or a discussion about what’s going on. Not that anyone
should be expected to submit an affidavit every time they refuse
sex; but over the course of years, the topic must be brought up and
aired. The most important thing for a healthy relationship is
keeping the lines open- maintaining the emotional connection and
understanding. (The most important thing for an unhealthy
relationship, on the other end, is to die, quickly and
quietly.)

I have a similar problem with my wife whom I married five years ago. At first we had really great sex. The problem started with her first childbirth (four years ago), and of course I understood that she did not wish sex as long as she was awfully tired and sleepless because of our baby. However, in later years she adopted the position that she would not have sex with me unless I get a better job that would provide all of us (including her teenager son from her first marriage) with a decent living ( including a flat of our own), on the condition that she would not have to return to work. While I did do various odd jobs besides my regular teaching position, my income was not sufficient to provide as much material comfort as she expected. She also took offense at that while I willingly washed our clothes, did the cleaning and washing-up, etc., I cannot cook. Her response has been, apart from regularly calling me a loser in front of the kids, to withhold sex. Now she says she simply does not want to have it with someone whom she cannot respect. She claims to have lost her libido, and so did I; cheating on one’s spouse is not her style or mine, anyway. I wonder how her attitude might be seen and explained from a female perspective, and if there is something I could do to repair our marriage. Of course, I try to get a job commensurate to her requirements, but you may understand that this is not wholly up to me.

Continue reading

Search this blog

"Those of us who love reading and writing believe that being a writer is a sacred trust. It means telling the truth. It means being incorruptible. It means not being afraid, and never lying."
Andrea Dworkin

"Sex-negative feminism consists of, what, Andrea Dworkin and that weird Cath Elliott woman at the Guardian?"
Someone on the Internet